Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy


The Supreme Court and guns

Debating with the enemy


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-13-2010, 12:18 PM   #16
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
A poor imitation is not the real thing. Brother Huey P. Newton said it best:
While its not the real thing the hate they spew is real and the Obama administration found nothing wrong with them blocking voting booths while welding a club.

John Fund: Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case Dropped - WSJ.com

I guess they only care about racist when they are white.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 07-13-2010, 12:26 PM   #17
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 34
Posts: 9,858
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
While its not the real thing the hate they spew is real and the Obama administration found nothing wrong with them blocking voting booths while welding a club.

John Fund: Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case Dropped - WSJ.com

I guess they only care about racist when they are white.
LOL...the question is would the justice department be able to get a conviction if they prosecute them? I don't think so, especially when it's just two guys.

I suppose the whole story makes for good tv and good read in consevative circles.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 01:01 PM   #18
Playmaker
 
Trample the Elderly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Three Chopt Virginia
Age: 36
Posts: 2,906
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
LOL...the question is would the justice department be able to get a conviction if they prosecute them? I don't think so, especially when it's just two guys.

I suppose the whole story makes for good tv and good read in consevative circles.
Advocating racially motivated murder of children is right in your mind? I always knew you were effed up! In VA that's called fighting words. It is in our law. It's the same as going into a movie theatre and yelling fire. That isn't free speech, it's incitment. That's why those agent provacateurs were there, to stir up violence.
__________________
A funny thing happened on the way to the temple. The moneychangers bought the priesthood.
Trample the Elderly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 01:09 PM   #19
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 34
Posts: 9,858
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly View Post
Advocating racially motivated murder of children is right in your mind? I always knew you were effed up! In VA that's called fighting words. It is in our law. It's the same as going into a movie theatre and yelling fire. That isn't free speech, it's incitment. That's why those agent provacateurs were there, to stir up violence.
You're ranting and you don't make sense. Relax and tells what you're talking about in a cool and calm manner.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 01:25 PM   #20
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
LOL...the question is would the justice department be able to get a conviction if they prosecute them? I don't think so, especially when it's just two guys.

I suppose the whole story makes for good tv and good read in consevative circles.
Just two guys dressed in military outfits welding night sticks with tons of video of this is really a tough case. I forgot we are talking Obama and every thing is tough for them.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 01:34 PM   #21
Playmaker
 
Trample the Elderly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Three Chopt Virginia
Age: 36
Posts: 2,906
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
You're ranting and you don't make sense. Relax and tells what you're talking about in a cool and calm manner.
It is your responsibility to be informed. Watch the video on the link I provided. Where do you go to get information anyway, one of the gov controlled alphabet stations? So you didn't hear about the "New" Black Panters in front of the voting station screaming about, "we're gonna have to kill cracker babies"? Let me ask you something. If two Neo-Nazis armed with baseball bats, went down to a Jewish voting center, and started saying, "We can't wait until we can start killing Jews again, We got to kill us some Jews!" Would you consider that voter intimidation?
__________________
A funny thing happened on the way to the temple. The moneychangers bought the priesthood.
Trample the Elderly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 01:57 PM   #22
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 34
Posts: 9,858
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Section 11(b) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act:

Quote:
No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 3(a), 6, 8, 9, 10, or 12(e).
The only time this section was used to prosecute was to prosecute Jesse Helms campaign staffers:

Quote:
In a combative 1990 reelection campaign, Helms nearly lost to African American Harvey Gantt. The former Democratic mayor of Charlotte was ahead of Helms until the last weeks of the campaign, when Helms's forces mailed 125,000 postcards to voters warning them that they could be prosecuted for Fraud if they voted improperly. At least 44,000 cards were sent to black voters, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, which sent observers to the state to ensure fair elections. Helms edged out Gantt by just over 100,000 votes. In 1992, the Justice Department ruled that the Helms campaign had violated federal Civil Rights and voting laws by intimidating, threatening, and discouraging African Americans from voting. Helms's office denied that he was involved in the mailings.
Now, the situation with the Black Panthers is that they are standing there with batons...are they intimidating? Sure. Can their lawyer make the case that they were there to protect black voters and therefor had no intent to intimidate white voters? You bet your ass any half-decent lawyer can. I've seen the video and I didn't see any of them having a conversation voters going and out. Did I miss something?

The justice department has a good track record of suing only when it is fairly certain it has a great chance of winning. It only takes one juror to say not guilty and I can assure you they would have gone free. Plus you have to think about saving taxpayers the cost...won't anybody think of the deficits and the children?
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 02:01 PM   #23
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,317
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
LOL...the question is would the justice department be able to get a conviction if they prosecute them? I don't think so, especially when it's just two guys.

I suppose the whole story makes for good tv and good read in consevative circles.
DoJ had a conviction.

FOXNews.com - Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case

From the article: "The Bush Justice Department brought the first case against three members of the group, accusing them in a civil complaint of violating the Voter Rights Act. The Obama administration initially pursued the case, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court. But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a "deadly weapon" near a polling place until 2012."

A Very Obama Scandal - WSJ.com

Bartle Bull (lifelong Democrat and former civil rights lawyer) saw this first-hand and described the incident as: "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen."

The Obama Admin. was absolutely wrong to drop this case.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 02:08 PM   #24
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 34
Posts: 9,858
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
DoJ had a conviction.

FOXNews.com - Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case

From the article: "The Bush Justice Department brought the first case against three members of the group, accusing them in a civil complaint of violating the Voter Rights Act. The Obama administration initially pursued the case, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court. But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a "deadly weapon" near a polling place until 2012."

A Very Obama Scandal - WSJ.com

Bartle Bull (lifelong Democrat and former civil rights lawyer) saw this first-hand and described the incident as: "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen."

The Obama Admin. was absolutely wrong to drop this case.
Default Judgment sounds nice but means nothing and it certainly isn't a "conviction"...it can be easily vacated in criminal matters. I know all about Adams and is cohorts. Do you?

Read the Schlozman Report released by the DOJ in 2008.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 02:49 PM   #25
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,317
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
Default Judgment sounds nice but means nothing and it certainly isn't a "conviction"...it can be easily vacated in criminal matters. I know all about Adams and is cohorts. Do you?

Read the Schlozman Report released by the DOJ in 2008.
The political hiring issue and Adams' politcal leanings do not have an affect on the merits of the case and the fact that there was a conviction. What the NBBP members were doing was blantantly wrong, the NBBP member with the night-stick has been caught on video advocating violence against whites, and what's not on the video are the threats he made against polling workers.

Again from Bartle Bull's affidavit; "I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters." He also said they tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically," noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."

www.usccr.gov/NBPH/05-14-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf

I would suggest you read page 5 of the linked document:
"A black poll worker who happened to be working for the Republican Party was called a race traitor and promised that there would be hell to pay if he emerged from the polling place, according to eyewitness statements. He was so alarmed by the Panthers' presence that he would not leave the polling
place until they left."

Open and shut.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 03:00 PM   #26
Playmaker
 
Trample the Elderly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Three Chopt Virginia
Age: 36
Posts: 2,906
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
The political hiring issue and Adams' politcal leanings do not have an affect on the merits of the case and the fact that there was a conviction. What the NBBP members were doing was blantantly wrong, the NBBP member with the night-stick has been caught on video advocating violence against whites, and what's not on the video are the threats he made against polling workers.

Again from Bartle Bull's affidavit; "I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters." He also said they tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically," noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."

www.usccr.gov/NBPH/05-14-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf

I would suggest you read page 5 of the linked document:
"A black poll worker who happened to be working for the Republican Party was called a race traitor and promised that there would be hell to pay if he emerged from the polling place, according to eyewitness statements. He was so alarmed by the Panthers' presence that he would not leave the polling
place until they left."

Open and shut.
Nice
__________________
A funny thing happened on the way to the temple. The moneychangers bought the priesthood.
Trample the Elderly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 04:26 PM   #27
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 34
Posts: 9,858
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

SS33, per your link:

Quote:
COMMISSIONER YAKI: Point of information on the voting rights.
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Yes?
COMMISSIONER YAKI: I just have a question about a statement made in the Chairman's opening remarks. You talked about the --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki, we are under tight time constraints.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: I know. I understand. But I think this is important because --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: It may be important
COMMISSIONER YAKI: -- it goes to the rules of the game here, which is you talked about the so-called terrified poll worker at the facility --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Mr. Yaki? Commissioner Yaki?
COMMISSIONER YAKI: -- when there has been direct evidence --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki, we will not be doing this now. Vice Chair Thernstrom, please continue.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: I am asking for clarification, Mr. Chair. You made a statement.
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Vice Chair Thernstrom?
COMMISSIONER YAKI: It was not based on any direct evidence --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: 1 Please proceed.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: -- by anyone here. It is hearsay testimony. The only thing --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki, now is not the time to try to run out the clock.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: I am not trying to run out the clock. I am simply saying that there has been no direct testimony --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki? Commissioner Yaki, you are wasting valuable time. And you know it.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: And I think that your ten-minute statement when we only get one minute is a way to put facts into evidence which do not exist.
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki?
COMMISSIONER YAKI: I just want to make that point.
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki?
COMMISSIONER YAKI: That's all I have to say.
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki, if this happens again, it will come out of your time.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: Oh, you can do whatever you want, Mr. Chair.

Testimoney of Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, Mr. Thomas Perez:


Quote:
As noted in the written responses to the Commission's inquiry, we have endeavored to be responsive to the Commission's request while at the same time protecting against disclosures which would undermine well-established and longstanding confidentiality interests that are integral to the discharge of our law enforcement responsibilities, particularly those relating to litigation decisions.

At the outset, let me emphasize with respect to Section 11(b) decisions that these are hard cases. Very few such cases have been brought. In fact, we can find records of only three cases filed by the government under Section 11(b) since its inception.

The standards for proof are high. And, as in every case, the question to be addressed is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the burden of proof. And on that question, reasonable minds can differ and can look at the same set of facts but draw different conclusions regarding whether the burden of proof has been met. Let me give you a few examples to illustrate that point.

In the most recent case under 11(b) to go to trial, United States versus Brown, the court found that the publication in the newspaper by a county political party chairman of a list of voters to be challenged if they attempted to vote in the party primary did not amount to intimidation, threat, or coercion under 11(b).

In another case, in Arizona, the complaint was received by a national civil rights organization regarding events in Pima, Arizona in the 2006 election when three well-known anti-immigrant advocates affiliated with the Minutemen, one of whom was carrying a gun, allegedly intimidated Latino voters at a polling place by approaching several persons, filming them, and advocating and printing voting materials in Spanish.

In that instance, the Department declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation, notwithstanding the requests of the complaining parties.

In 2005, the Division 1 received allegations that armed Mississippi State investigators intimidated elderly minority voters during an investigation of possible voter fraud in municipal elections by visiting them in their home, asking them who they voted for, in spite of state law protections that explicitly forbid such inquiries.

Here again, the Division front office leadership declined to bring a voter intimidation case in this matter. This is the matter referenced in a recent GAO report that examined a number of cases brought by certain sections of the Civil Rights Division during the Bush administration.
Bang!
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 04:56 PM   #28
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,317
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
Bang!
Spin away, that's no surprise. Of the items you highlighted none have video evidence or impartial testimony attached to them. I'll take video evidience, a sworn affidavit from a life long Democrat, and eyewitness statements as impartial facts. However you want to spin this, what happened was flat out wrong and should've been prosecuted.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2010, 05:03 PM   #29
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 34
Posts: 9,858
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
Spin away, that's no surprise. Of the items you highlighted none have video evidence or impartial testimony attached to them. I'll take video evidience, a sworn affidavit from a life long Democrat, and eyewitness statements as impartial facts. However you want to spin this, what happened was flat out wrong and should've been prosecuted.

Check yourself, you done got robbed of the glory you were hoping for. Your sauce is weak...I know it, I know you know it...everyone knows it. Your narrative is weak and infertile man. You've lost this battle but the war isn't over...keep hope alive, Obama is bound to f'up some more.

LOL....let me stop before I laugh myself to death.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2010, 10:12 AM   #30
Living Legend
 
Monkeydad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: PA
Age: 35
Posts: 16,275
Re: The Supreme Court and guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly View Post
It is your responsibility to be informed. Watch the video on the link I provided. Where do you go to get information anyway, one of the gov controlled alphabet stations? So you didn't hear about the "New" Black Panters in front of the voting station screaming about, "we're gonna have to kill cracker babies"? Let me ask you something. If two Neo-Nazis armed with baseball bats, went down to a Jewish voting center, and started saying, "We can't wait until we can start killing Jews again, We got to kill us some Jews!" Would you consider that voter intimidation?
He can't help not hearing about it...his news sources would rather have a panel discussion about Mel Gibson than the Obama DOJ's ignoring of the black version of the KKK threatening murder of white babies and letting charges of voter intimidation hide in the back of the filing cabinet.

The way the Administration is handling...actually NOT handling the Black Panthers is going to have some gigantic ramifications in the upcoming elections. I do predict the BPs to be allowed to be out and about on Election Day again though. By the President's own words, he's in agreement with the Black Panthers on issues such as reparations. Scary. Of course, some of us knew this before he was elected, but the ignorant masses either disregarded it as "hate speech" and attacks...or never bothered to find out.

In today's REAL news, the NAACP is condemning the Tea Party movement for racism...while they say nothing about the Black Panthers. I anticipate some statements and possible actions against the nonexistent racism in the Tea Parties. Breitbart offered a giant cash reward for video footage of some real racism at an event...many months ago...still nothing.

Playing the race card and throwing around baseless claims of racism does nothing else but minimize the scrutiny against REAL examples of racism. Boy who cried wolf-type effect.

It's shocking how little attention some people are paying...if you have not learned that you can't trust the mainstream media, you're incredibly naive.




As NAACP aims to stay in national debate, charge of tea party racism draws fire

Breitbart.tv Democrat Congressman ‘Unaware’ of the New Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case
__________________
Not sent from a Droid, iPhone, Blackberry or toaster
Monkeydad is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.41815 seconds with 10 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25